So am I. Left side of the page, "CLICK HERE. The Maine facilities live web camera.

Was that link there earlier in the day???

What I don't get concerning Mahaney Diamond is how the field had fallen into such a state of disrepair....??? Was it always THAT bad? Back in the day, I don't remember coaches or players complaining about it like they do now (and I'm not saying that it isn't in bad shape).

bainsey wrote:And TL, if you're going to put baseball on the same priority level as football, that's just wishful thinking.

Never said I'd put them on "same priority level" when that's judged on attendance or revenue, and I agree that football and hockey clearly are on top of all sports on that basis. No doubt all them out-of-state football scholarship kids need a decent field to play on !!

I only believe and tried to portray that I would put all of the 3 field renovation projects on the same priority level (and schedule!) when statements and commitments to that effect have been made, by supposedly professional and honorable people employed by a so-called institution of higher learning !? Once your "word" is out there, I don't subscribe to a philosophy that keeping your word is then subject to subsequent "priorities". If you said and told people, and staff, that it was coming and you were going to do it (and even that "it is a priority"), then live up to your word !, don't change your word later just because other circumstances make it less "convenient" and more challenging (which is NOT really the case specific to the baseball field, but it IS for the field hockey (i.e., that one I believe is more, way more!, costly than first estimated ?!)).

MJ - With respect to Mahaney Diamond having "fallen into such a state of disrepair" ?, I wouldn't (didn't) say that is necessarily the case (any more than I would for the football stadium/field). It is however, now a pretty rough and second class natural grass surface relative to even moderately nice college D1 fields nowadays, and has not seen any improvements of note for quite some time (e.g., improved subsurface drainage, aggressive semi-annual turf treatments, etc.).

Hey, how about I calm down now about this topic and bite my tongue till August, when maybe this will all be seen to have been much ado about nothing (hopefully !) ? ...Besides, at least bainsey got those cool cameras he likes so much (had money for those !?) ! (guess he's done watching the MDOT cameras for now though ? .... or was it the "Eagle Cam" he liked ?) LOL !!

I KNOW, Better yet !, let's start a pool on what comes first: a) work on the new baseball field ?, or b) a new softball head coach ? ....Tough Call !? (I'd throw in c) new AD, but that's probably too easy of a toss-out choice, unfortunately ?!)

If you can't see it, you can't hit it ! And the sooner you see it, the better you'll hit it !!

Heh. Webcams are pretty cheap, TL. Besides, it's nice to see our tax dollars at work first hand.

Anyway, you bring up fair points, but a business reality in any organization is that plans get pushed back based on the almighty buck. That will never change, so I'm sure it's a lot of work for UM just to raise the funds to make this all happen.

Whatever we may feel about the win-loss records this year, I don't think it's right to throw Blake James under the bus here. I think passing judgment in August is the right move, once the fields are assembled. I look forward to the new football field.

The Blake James issue aside (for now ), I hear what you're saying bainsey. And you are quite correct in that we (I?) do need to recognize that they have no doubt been busting their tails just to raise the funds that they already have !, given current economic climate. Even I will tip my hat and say thanks very much for that effort !

Latest word from the "grapevine" is that the stakes are actually already in the ground (that's grade stakes by the way ! and can you see them on the web cam ???), and the ballfield renovation really is a "go" come August, so I'll keep my optimistic hat on till then !

If you can't see it, you can't hit it ! And the sooner you see it, the better you'll hit it !!

mainejeff wrote: So how many years (or decades) do we give Blake James before we can judge him?

You can judge him all you want, Jeff. I'm just not ready to cry wolf yet.

I can certainly see what people were complaining about Patrick Nero, as he burned a number of bridges, but I'm not seeing it with Blake James. If a mistake has been made within the department (bad coaching choices, other scandals), then corrective action has been taken. Sure, I wish he would have pushed productivity in his statements about the softball coaching change, but in the grand scheme of things, I can't say what's going on this year is a reason for change.

Nobody likes mediocrity, but I don't blame the A.D. for losing seasons. The A.D. needs to make coaching changes and other administrative decisions where they need be. I believe James has done this, and will do this again if he was to.

Do we dump people because they're not great? If so, we'd all get dumped pretty quickly. If you more reasons that we need new athletic leadership, I'm all ears.

Just thought I'd point out a few bridges that Mr. James may have burned:

1. Stephen and Tabitha King: while the change in the media contract may have generated revenue for the athletic department, my guess is that it pales against what the University probably lost in donations from the Kings. At a minimum, really poorly handled from an alumni relations standpoint.

2. Emily Rousseau: again, another PR mess.

3. His comments about wins and losses not being important: not the kind of comment expected from an athletic director in the only D1 program in the state. That's the comment of an administrator, not an athletic leader, and obviously it set off a number of people, including many alums.

4. continued student athlete misconduct. While I know that the AD does not control each student, he can set a tone that personal character should be a strong consideration in recruiting, and I don't see it.